Freedom of religion & Gay marriage

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps he means West in some other sense.

[JohnB]

"Western" refers to the transplanted European culture, not the indigenous culture in a region. Australia is a "Western" nation due to the transplanted English culture, not because of the paleolithic aboriginal one. Brazil etc are "Western" due to the transplanted Spanish/Portugese culture and not due to the indigenous Mayan/Aztec/Toltec ones.

 

Consequently when discussing the history of anything in "Western" culture what the indigenous populations of nations now known as Western did or did not do is utterly irrelevent.

 

doG, I'm sure that you are well aware of this, why you are attempting to ignore it is frankly beyond me. Mayans are not now and never have been part of Western culture, there is no logical reason to include their practices when discussing the history of western culture except perhaps to mention their destruction.

 

If we were discussing the history of crime and punishment in western culture would you be insisting on including the Australian aboriginal practice of "spearing" as a punishment? Of course not. This is the same thing.

 

This has been my point. Repeatedly.

[John Cuthber]

"Western" refers to the transplanted European culture, not the indigenous culture in a region. Australia is a "Western" nation due to the transplanted English culture, not because of the paleolithic aboriginal one. Brazil etc are "Western" due to the transplanted Spanish/Portugese culture and not due to the indigenous Mayan/Aztec/Toltec ones.

 

Consequently when discussing the history of anything in "Western" culture what the indigenous populations of nations now known as Western did or did not do is utterly irrelevent.

 

doG, I'm sure that you are well aware of this, why you are attempting to ignore it is frankly beyond me. Mayans are not now and never have been part of Western culture, there is no logical reason to include their practices when discussing the history of western culture except perhaps to mention their destruction.

 

If we were discussing the history of crime and punishment in western culture would you be insisting on including the Australian aboriginal practice of "spearing" as a punishment? Of course not. This is the same thing.

 

This has been my point. Repeatedly.

And my (repeated) point has been that you can get married in the West without needing a church.

So you have been repeatedly wrong.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Gays can do whatever they want, but they should not expect the government to recognise it. But it is also wrong to give special legal rights and tax exemptions to normal married people.

 

As to whether gays should be allowed to adopt, perhaps the best solution is what adoption agencies are already doing: just give them the crack babies!

 

!

Moderator Note

Given that I have already issued a stern warning about these types of posts here, this probably doesn't need an extra warning. However, for the sake of people reading this who didn't happen upon that post and for the sake of completeness, I'm not letting this go without a mod note.

 

No, no and a thousand times no. Go back and please read our rules and ensure that you are mindful of them (and our etiquette guidelines) when posting in future. These sorts of posts are absolutely not acceptable here.

[doG]

This has been my point. Repeatedly.

Your repeated point is prevarication. Your assertion the church has had a monopoly on marriage for a couple of thousand years or so is untrue and unsupported. There's no point in having any debate at all on a science site with those that make quack, untrue assertions and refuse to offer any support for them. If you can not or will not support your assertions then there's no point in giving any consideration to your point of view at all. Those that are worthy of debate are those that can support what they claim with references. You've repeatedly shown that you are not one of those.

[JohnB]

I've been pondering whether to bother since conflating ideas seems to be the standard ATM.

 

John, the point I want to make very clear is that in a discussion about western values and traditions, non western values and traditions are not relevent. It has no bearing on any part of the discussion. I've been going on about it simply to get it cleared up or else as we go on we'll be getting objections based on the marraige practices of eskimos in 540 AD.

 

So doG, it wasn't prevarication. I was just trying to get you to agree to keep a discussion about western values about western values and that we wouldn't get sidetracked by irrelevencies. What the Mayans or north american indians did or did not do simply isn't relevent, so were we going to finish up discussing the eskimos or keep it in the west? If the former I'd give up instantly and not waste any more time, if the latter then the discussion was worth having. That was literally all I wanted, an acknowledgment from you that indian and mayan practices are not relevent in a discussion about historical western practices. But I guess that was too much to ask.

 

John, yes you can get married in England without the church having a say. It's been that way since 1835, however if you got married in England in 1834 then you were required to have the church present.

 

Similarly you gave an example for the French showing the religious ceremony to be not needed. Also true, but only since the French Revolution. Prior to that the church held sway and did so again after the Restoration, however with the second Republic the power of the church over marriages in France was broken for good.

 

Similar things are found in the histories of Spain and most other European nations.

 

The best thing that I can say about my position on historical marriages is that I was both wrong and right, but far more wrong than right. The power and influence of the church waxed and waned throughout Christendom during the last 1500-2000 years, depending on whether you want to start the christian era with Christ or Nicea. The power waxed far more slowly than I thought and waned rather more rapidly than I expected. Indeed Martin Luther was arguing against the church becoming involved in marriages in the early 1500s.

 

Taking England for example the church requirement was removed in 1835, but it was only brought in in 1753. So the time that the Church had total power over marriage was only about 80 years or so. Note that this power was reserved for the "Church of England" only and oddly didn't apply to jews.

 

If we look at the strongly Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal their populations would have paid far more attention to the Council of Trent and its proclamation that a religious ceremony was required for Catholics to get married. The Council was in 1566 so even that came into force much later than I thought.

 

So doG and John, I was wrong for the most part. Religion has not dominated marriage rules for most of the last 2000 years. The most that can really be said is that it did dominate for relatively short periods of time in different nations at different times and those times were generally between circa 1550 - circa 1850.

 

And if either of you are wondering where conflating comes into it the answer is simple. Just because I was wrong about the power of the church doesn't make me wrong that the practices of the mayans are irrelevent. They are two totally different topics and why they got put together is beyond me.

 

John, going back to yout post #44 we actually aren't that far apart in ideas. I happen to view "marriage" as a word, but it does have power.

 

The current situation is that a very small minority of the population want the right to "marry". These people are generally backed by a sizable minority. Just using Wiki and the ABS, Wiki says that 1.6% of Australian males identify as gay. So if the "right" is denied then we p*ss off 1.6% of the population. Their non religious supporters would be miffed but they are roughly 25% of the population.

 

Meanwhile if we do grant the "right" then we will p*ss off some 69% of the population. This is assuming that all gays and non christians are in favour and all christians are against. I don't think that this is the case, but it is a starting point. Figures are from the 2001 Census of the Australian population.

 

It was the sheer numbers that make me suggest a "Marriage/Civil Union" idea. Take the term "marriage" away from the church and you won't be irritating a small minority but probably more than 50% of the population. Marriage is important to the church? Fine, they can have it then. So long as they don't allow marriages that society won't allow as a Civil Union nobody cares. The downside is that about 3% (maximum) won't get to say that they are "married". Life sucks.

 

I'm not talking about giving the church power over who can or cannot be paired. All the church gets is that the word "marriage" is reserved for them, like "Baptism". All power as to who can be paired is with the secular authority so society decides who can and can't, not the church. So if society decides that pairing can only be between "Two consenting adults" then that is who can get a Civil Union and churches are limited to "marrying" only couples who fit the criteria.

 

Actually Baptism is a pretty good example to follow. If it is officiated by the church it's a "Baptism", if it happens outside the Christian church it's generally called a "Naming" ceremony. Two different names, but the same thing before the law. Let's face it, the kids name is official when it's put on his/her Birth Certificate anyway, baptism or naming is just gilding the lilly.

 

I must stress though that the "marriage" and the Civil Union" must be of totally equal value in the eyes of the law. And "De Facto" rules should apply equally.

 

A final point, in post #44 you said;

You shouldn't let minority interest groups make decisions about important stuff

 

But isn't that exactly what you are trying to do? According to the US Census Table 75, some 173,402,000 Americans out of a population (2008) of 228,182,000 identify as "Christian". Somehow this does not strike me a percentage that the word "minority" would describe.

 

US figures are interesting as they are drawn from the sex of the partner and not from a direct question. But from the results we can see that "minority interest groups" would certainly apply to the gay community. In an ABC article we find that;

In Alabama, there are 11,259 same-sex couples, representing 5.98 couples per 1,000 households in the state. Of those, 3,069 or 27 percent are raising children.

 

6 couples per thousand is definitely "minority" territory.

 

In short. It would appear that defining "marriage" as "between a man and a woman" is important to a large percentage of the population while those who push for "two consenting adults" are in the minority. Those that back the "between a man and a woman" generally do so on religious grounds. Fine, so we give the word "marriage" to the religious for their use and the rest of us use another term. While this sucks for the minority it upsets the least number of people.

 

BTW I personally view the "Two consenting adults" thing as referring to two people over the age 18 (or 16 with parental consent). It is ageist and discriminatory but tough luck and if you don't like then go some place else to satisfy your kiddy fiddling urges. ("Your" in this case referring to NAMBLA and their ilk and no person on this forum.) I'm not fazed in the least to be called any names due to opposing child brides. (or husbands)

Edited June 17, 2012 by JohnB

[John Cuthber]

According to this

http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats.aspx

there are 19,500 or so ministers of the Church of England in the UK- about 1 for each 2,500 of the population.

I call that a minority and they are the ones who would make the decision about whether or not the church marries gay couples.

 

That's what I meant when I said "You shouldn't let minority interest groups make decisions about important stuff"

(Unless you can show that most Americans are preachers of some sort)

[Moontanman]

I've been pondering whether to bother since conflating ideas seems to be the standard ATM.

 

John, the point I want to make very clear is that in a discussion about western values and traditions, non western values and traditions are not relevent. It has no bearing on any part of the discussion. I've been going on about it simply to get it cleared up or else as we go on we'll be getting objections based on the marraige practices of eskimos in 540 AD.

 

So doG, it wasn't prevarication. I was just trying to get you to agree to keep a discussion about western values about western values and that we wouldn't get sidetracked by irrelevencies. What the Mayans or north american indians did or did not do simply isn't relevent, so were we going to finish up discussing the eskimos or keep it in the west? If the former I'd give up instantly and not waste any more time, if the latter then the discussion was worth having. That was literally all I wanted, an acknowledgment from you that indian and mayan practices are not relevent in a discussion about historical western practices. But I guess that was too much to ask.

 

John, yes you can get married in England without the church having a say. It's been that way since 1835, however if you got married in England in 1834 then you were required to have the church present.

 

Similarly you gave an example for the French showing the religious ceremony to be not needed. Also true, but only since the French Revolution. Prior to that the church held sway and did so again after the Restoration, however with the second Republic the power of the church over marriages in France was broken for good.

 

Similar things are found in the histories of Spain and most other European nations.

 

The best thing that I can say about my position on historical marriages is that I was both wrong and right, but far more wrong than right. The power and influence of the church waxed and waned throughout Christendom during the last 1500-2000 years, depending on whether you want to start the christian era with Christ or Nicea. The power waxed far more slowly than I thought and waned rather more rapidly than I expected. Indeed Martin Luther was arguing against the church becoming involved in marriages in the early 1500s.

 

Taking England for example the church requirement was removed in 1835, but it was only brought in in 1753. So the time that the Church had total power over marriage was only about 80 years or so. Note that this power was reserved for the "Church of England" only and oddly didn't apply to jews.

 

If we look at the strongly Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal their populations would have paid far more attention to the Council of Trent and its proclamation that a religious ceremony was required for Catholics to get married. The Council was in 1566 so even that came into force much later than I thought.

 

So doG and John, I was wrong for the most part. Religion has not dominated marriage rules for most of the last 2000 years. The most that can really be said is that it did dominate for relatively short periods of time in different nations at different times and those times were generally between circa 1550 - circa 1850.

 

And if either of you are wondering where conflating comes into it the answer is simple. Just because I was wrong about the power of the church doesn't make me wrong that the practices of the mayans are irrelevent. They are two totally different topics and why they got put together is beyond me.

 

John, going back to yout post #44 we actually aren't that far apart in ideas. I happen to view "marriage" as a word, but it does have power.

 

The current situation is that a very small minority of the population want the right to "marry". These people are generally backed by a sizable minority. Just using Wiki and the ABS, Wiki says that 1.6% of Australian males identify as gay. So if the "right" is denied then we p*ss off 1.6% of the population. Their non religious supporters would be miffed but they are roughly 25% of the population.

 

Meanwhile if we do grant the "right" then we will p*ss off some 69% of the population. This is assuming that all gays and non christians are in favour and all christians are against. I don't think that this is the case, but it is a starting point. Figures are from the 2001 Census of the Australian population.

 

It was the sheer numbers that make me suggest a "Marriage/Civil Union" idea. Take the term "marriage" away from the church and you won't be irritating a small minority but probably more than 50% of the population. Marriage is important to the church? Fine, they can have it then. So long as they don't allow marriages that society won't allow as a Civil Union nobody cares. The downside is that about 3% (maximum) won't get to say that they are "married". Life sucks.

 

I'm not talking about giving the church power over who can or cannot be paired. All the church gets is that the word "marriage" is reserved for them, like "Baptism". All power as to who can be paired is with the secular authority so society decides who can and can't, not the church. So if society decides that pairing can only be between "Two consenting adults" then that is who can get a Civil Union and churches are limited to "marrying" only couples who fit the criteria.

 

Actually Baptism is a pretty good example to follow. If it is officiated by the church it's a "Baptism", if it happens outside the Christian church it's generally called a "Naming" ceremony. Two different names, but the same thing before the law. Let's face it, the kids name is official when it's put on his/her Birth Certificate anyway, baptism or naming is just gilding the lilly.

 

I must stress though that the "marriage" and the Civil Union" must be of totally equal value in the eyes of the law. And "De Facto" rules should apply equally.

 

A final point, in post #44 you said;

 

 

But isn't that exactly what you are trying to do? According to the US Census Table 75, some 173,402,000 Americans out of a population (2008) of 228,182,000 identify as "Christian". Somehow this does not strike me a percentage that the word "minority" would describe.

 

US figures are interesting as they are drawn from the sex of the partner and not from a direct question. But from the results we can see that "minority interest groups" would certainly apply to the gay community. In an ABC article we find that;

 

 

6 couples per thousand is definitely "minority" territory.

 

In short. It would appear that defining "marriage" as "between a man and a woman" is important to a large percentage of the population while those who push for "two consenting adults" are in the minority. Those that back the "between a man and a woman" generally do so on religious grounds. Fine, so we give the word "marriage" to the religious for their use and the rest of us use another term. While this sucks for the minority it upsets the least number of people.

 

BTW I personally view the "Two consenting adults" thing as referring to two people over the age 18 (or 16 with parental consent). It is ageist and discriminatory but tough luck and if you don't like then go some place else to satisfy your kiddy fiddling urges. ("Your" in this case referring to NAMBLA and their ilk and no person on this forum.) I'm not fazed in the least to be called any names due to opposing child brides. (or husbands)

 

 

John, have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority? If 90% of the population decides you should marry a man and refuses to allow male female couples to marry then is it ok to suppress your rights?

 

Now I have to admit I have no idea how it works in Australia but in the US not only is religion behind the push to deny gay marriage and civil unions it's simply not true that churches will not marry same sex couples. Some do, a great many as a matter of fact. No one is suggesting that all churches be required to marry gays.

 

The most disturbing thing here in the US is the denial of civil unions to non religious couples as well as gays, the church doesn't just want to prohibit gays from being married they want the whole enchilada, they want to control marriage, birth control, education, morality of everyone. some are actually advocating rounding gays up into concentration camps and allowing them to die off since they cannot reproduce. Stupid narrow minded controlling people who lie awake at night worrying that some place some one is having a good time... and something must be done about it.

 

The most disturbing thing to me is how so called mainstream religious people can't bring themselves to call bullshit on this crap, they don't understand that they enjoy their own religious point of view because of laws limiting the power of religion to interfere in their daily lives and what the hell does NAMBLA have to do with this?

[JohnB]

there are 19,500 or so ministers of the Church of England in the UK- about 1 for each 2,500 of the population.

I call that a minority and they are the ones who would make the decision about whether or not the church marries gay couples.

 

That's what I meant when I said "You shouldn't let minority interest groups make decisions about important stuff"

 

Ah. Fair enough. I thought that you were referring to christians in general. I was thinking about the size of the relative populations ie Christians v Gay.

 

John, have you ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?

 

Yes I have. But like those "trusty old sayings" there is always a damned if you do and damned if you don't. You are rightly concerned about the tyranny of the majority but at the same time are complaining about the aims and objectives of a vocal minority. In anything, no matter who wins they will always be either a majority or a minority. "Tyranny of the majority" or "Pandering to special interest minorities"? Which one is worse?

 

Concerning the rest of your comment. This is why I suggested giving the religious the word "marriage" like they have "Baptism". They can decide who they will or will not marry in their church and so long as it isn't a couple precluded by civil law nobody will say boo. If a particular church wants to marry Gays then they ca, if they don't then they don't have to.

 

But the reverse is also part of the deal. Society, not the Church gets to say who can have Civil Unions.

 

For a lot of people in the mainstream religions, it is actually the word that is important, not the act. They want the word "marriage" kept so that it doesn't apply to Gays. As giving the word to the religious will mollify them it pulls most of the support from under the extremists. The vast majority that I'm aware of have no problem with the idea of the Civil Union, they just want the word "marriage" reserved for the Church type weddings. Grant the basics to the mainstream religions, that they get the word "marriage" for their use and that they don't have to marry gays in their church if they don't want to and watch support for the extremists views disappear.

 

We do this sort of thing all the time. Know any non jews who have had a Bar Mitzvah? The pagan community have "Handfasting" which under Aussie law is not a legal "marriage" if performed by a pagan Priest or Priestess, but is legal if performed by a civil celebrant. This works reasonably well. A pagan who wants to go the whole hog has their wedding officiated by their Priest and a civil celebrant.

 

As to NAMBLA. I brought them into it to demonstrate that unless you are going to have a free for all with no rules at all, then you will be discriminating against somebody. To my mind it is hypocritical to demand something for one group on the grounds that denying it is "discriminatory" while at the same time denying the demanded thing to another group. Since any rules will automatically be discriminating against somebody, then to me this makes "discrimination" arguments null and void.

 

Stupid narrow minded controlling people who lie awake at night worrying that some place some one is having a good time... and something must be done about it.

 

Mate they are everywhere, and not confined to religions. Look at groups like the Sierra Club and the like. The idea that people drive into the pristine wilderness and enjoy the sights drives them to apopolexy. Nature must be left undisturbed, sealed off from man. These people naturally gravitiate to areas where they think they can get control of other peoples actions.

[John Cuthber]

Actually, the Church already has a word for the marriage ceremony that isn't a marriage ceremony.

It's called a blessing.

My cousin married a woman who was divorced.

His religious sect didn't recognise divorce so it wouldn't let them marry in church.

So they married at a registry office then went to the church for a blessing ceremony (which looked a lot like a wedding to me).

So the church was quite happy to take their money to host a service of blessing for what they must logically have thought to be a bigamous relationship and therefore illegal by both the law of the land and by their creed.

 

Since the church already has this idea why not extend it to all the "couples getting together to live together" that they wish to?

They can choose not to offer it to same sex couples if they like.

Then they can let the rest of us carry on using the idea of marriage as we have done for centuries (give or take some interruptions) without the church getting in the way.

After all, it's not just religions for whom " it is actually the word that is important, not the act. " many people think the same way and they therefore think that they should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

[iNow]

Let's be honest here about the mindset and motivation with which we're really dealing on this issue.

 

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/down-with-religion/

 

One pastor from North Carolina suggested that fathers should punch their sons if they showed any sign of being gay. He said, “the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, you walk over there and crack that wrist.” He continued, “Man up! Give him a good punch.” He also warned against daughters “acting too butch.”

 

That was Pastor Sean Harris of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Think maybe he was quoted in an unfair way, or out of context? Nope, he wants his flock to "beat the gay out" of their kids. Watch for yourself:

 

 

 

But wait, there's more! This time, from God’s pastor Charles Worley of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina.

 

I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn’t get it passed through Congress. Build a great big large fence — 150 or 100 miles long — put all the lesbians in there, fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out. Feed them, and you know what, in a few years they’ll die out. Do you know why? They can’t reproduce.

 

Think maybe he's being misrepresented? Nope, think again:

 

 

 

And that's just two from rather recently and North Carolina. Shall we engage in a search for additional examples in the state? Additional examples in the country?

 

Let's be honest, here. This has nothing to do with traditional definitions or respect of beliefs. It's related solely to blind ignorance and bigotry... a bigotry that is facilitated and protected via religious "thinking" wherein people feel they are acting directly upon the wants and desires of their omnipotent and perfect imaginary friend called "god."

[Moontanman]

Gays can do whatever they want, but they should not expect the government to recognise it. But it is also wrong to give special legal rights and tax exemptions to normal married people.

 

As to whether gays should be allowed to adopt, perhaps the best solution is what adoption agencies are already doing: just give them the crack babies!

 

Crack babies are an urban myth, the real problem was and is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome...

[JohnB]

Actually, the Church already has a word for the marriage ceremony that isn't a marriage ceremony.

It's called a blessing.

 

So they do, I'd forgotten that one. I wonder how many have it?

 

After all, it's not just religions for whom " it is actually the word that is important, not the act. " many people think the same way and they therefore think that they should be allowed to marry whom they choose.

 

I think this is a nub of the problem. When looking at the total population, how many will be offended by gays being able to use the word "married" as opposed to those offended that they can't.

 

So we give the church "Blessing" instead? Sounds cool. I must admit that my secondary thought in giving them the word "marriage" was that over a course of years with a new generation growing up and seeing Civil Unions and Marriages being treated exactly the same and both using the same terms for most things then it would become standard usage for gays who had a civil union to be referred to as "married". Give it 20 years and everybody regardless of gender, civil union or church ceremony, will be "married" in the general vernacular. At that point the battle is over.

 

Let's be honest here about the mindset and motivation with which we're really dealing on this issue.

 

By all means let's be honest. But quoting extremist Americans and portraying their attitude as the mainstream one is not honest. These people represent very small minoriities out of the religious population and using them as examples of the "mindset and motivation" is the same as calling all right wing people nazis or left wing supporters Stalinist. It is not an honest portrayal of the situation at all to portray the extremes as the majority.

 

Cardinal George Pell represents all Australian Catholics, a far larger number than those pathetic little wannabes in the vids. Read his submission to the Senate Committee on same sex marriage in Australia here. His words are far more indicitive of the "mindset and motivation" of the mainstream churches than a couple of backwater Baptists.

 

And on a lighter note. While trying to find some youtube vids of the looney aussie religious (they do exist but are an object of derision) I got this vid in the "viewing" list. How cool is this Dalek cake?

 

How "The Battle of Mount Ainslie" is related to "The Ultimate Dalek Cake" I have no idea. Maybe it's because the witches and gays exterminated the fundamentalist rally.

Edited June 19, 2012 by JohnB

[Moontanman]

By all means let's be honest. But quoting extremist Americans and portraying their attitude as the mainstream one is not honest. These people represent very small minoriities out of the religious population and using them as examples of the "mindset and motivation" is the same as calling all right wing people nazis or left wing supporters Stalinist. It is not an honest portrayal of the situation at all to portray the extremes as the majority.

 

Cardinal George Pell represents all Australian Catholics, a far larger number than those pathetic little wannabes in the vids. Read his submission to the Senate Committee on same sex marriage in Australia here. His words are far more indicitive of the "mindset and motivation" of the mainstream churches than a couple of backwater Baptists.

 

 

Yes, lets be honest, in my state that small minority managed to get the State constitution changed to disenfranchise not only gays but secular M/F couples who are not married but instead use civil unions. yes, they won't allow civil unions anymore either, gay or other wise...

 

[iNow]

But quoting extremist Americans and portraying their attitude as the mainstream one is not honest.

I did no such thing. What I did do was to present evidence suggesting that the type of thinking leading to their idiocy is the same type of thinking that leads to the idiocy of trying to prevent people who have similar genitals from being married. They are different shades of gray, yes, but both gray all the same.

 

Also, to supplement Moontanman's central point, these types of people are not as much of a minority in the US as you seem to think, John. That type of thinking is really quite common and prevalent.

[doG]

I think this is a nub of the problem. When looking at the total population, how many will be offended by gays being able to use the word "married" as opposed to those offended that they can't.

That shouldn't matter. It is not ok even for 99.9999999999999...% of the population to say it's ok for us to use the word marriage but not you. Discrimination is never ok no matter what percentage of the population thinks it is. The ONLY victims in this case are the ones being discriminated against, not those that are doing the discriminating.

[JohnB]

Also, to supplement Moontanman's central point, these types of people are not as much of a minority in the US as you seem to think, John. That type of thinking is really quite common and prevalent.

 

Hmmmm, looking at Wiki I see what you mean. You have more "Evangelical Protestants" than Catholics or "Mainline Protestants". No wonder you're worried, I would be too. Objection withdrawn.

 

Down here the closest to American Baptists, etc are the "Uniting Church" which combined the Baptists, Methodists and a few others some time ago, but they are less than 5% of the population and have quite mainstream views, as in aligned with the Catholics and Church of England. I don't think people like the fools in the vids wouldn't make it 1% of the population.

 

That shouldn't matter. It is not ok even for 99.9999999999999...% of the population to say it's ok for us to use the word marriage but not you. Discrimination is never ok no matter what percentage of the population thinks it is. The ONLY victims in this case are the ones being discriminated against, not those that are doing the discriminating.

 

Welcome to political reality. Any decision in the political sphere will discriminate against somebody. This is reality, deal with it. The only other option is no rules at all which turns "child molesting" into "pre marital sex". Unpleasant perhaps, but we wouldn't want to be discriminating on the basis of age, would we?

[John Cuthber]

John, either these gay haters are a tiny minority, in which case we can go ahead and let gay couples marry, or they are not, in which case they are a much bigger problem than this and you shouldn't say they are unrepresentative.

You can't have it both ways.

[doG]

Welcome to political reality. Any decision in the political sphere will discriminate against somebody. This is reality, deal with it. The only other option is no rules at all which turns "child molesting" into "pre marital sex". Unpleasant perhaps, but we wouldn't want to be discriminating on the basis of age, would we?

Strawman!!! Letting adult gay couples marry is victimless. Child molestation is not. Can you really not see the difference?

 

Some of us oppose discrimination, me for example, some of us condone it, you for example.

Edited June 19, 2012 by doG

[Moontanman]

Welcome to political reality. Any decision in the political sphere will discriminate against somebody. This is reality, deal with it. The only other option is no rules at all which turns "child molesting" into "pre marital sex". Unpleasant perhaps, but we wouldn't want to be discriminating on the basis of age, would we?

 

 

Come on JohnB, i know you can't be serious with that assertion. Child molestation has a victim, Gay marriage does not...

[JohnB]

Can you really not see the difference?

 

Can you not see that you are complaining about discrimination on the grounds of sex and condoning discrimination on the grounds of age? If discrimination "is never ok" and should be opposed then the logical result is the repeal of "Age of Consent" rules. This is political reality.

 

I am quite happy to be called "discriminatory" if it stops child marriages, I'd wear the title with honour.

 

Put bluntly, stop talking in absolutes, it's silly. And stop calling "Strawman" when somebody points out the logical consequence of your comment.

 

John, why do you characterise people as "gay haters"? Except for the people like in the vids, most mainstream people don't "hate" gays, they really don't care one way or another. They simply think that marriage is based on procreation and should be kept between a man and a woman. For many people I've spoken to it has nothing to do with gays per se at all, it is an argument about the meaning of the word marraige. In another thread iNow and I were arguing about the meaning of the term "Climate Change". Does that make me a Texan hater? Or Anti American? Nope, it just means we were arguing about the meaning of a word.

 

This is why so many parishoners have no problem with the idea of gay civil union marriages. From their POV the gays get their right to wed and the meaning of the word marriage remains intact. As I've said before it's about the word itself and the church isn't going to give up without a big fight. So let them have the word, that is what they want and it pulld mainstream support out from under the extremists. Although America has a much higher percentage of nutters, so this answer might not work for them. But for the average Church of England or Catholic, if the word is reserved for the church they will be happy and really not care what the gay community does.

 

So, and this may not be true for the US, but down here the "haters" are a small minority, but those who believe the word refers to a man and a woman form a large group.

[Moontanman]

Can you not see that you are complaining about discrimination on the grounds of sex and condoning discrimination on the grounds of age? If discrimination "is never ok" and should be opposed then the logical result is the repeal of "Age of Consent" rules. This is political reality.

 

Children do not have the same rights as adults, your comparison fails.

 

I am quite happy to be called "discriminatory" if it stops child marriages, I'd wear the title with honour.

 

You seem to have a real worry with this, is there a movement I am unaware of that supports child marriage? (other than the Mormon fundamentalists?)

 

Put bluntly, stop talking in absolutes, it's silly. And stop calling "Strawman" when somebody points out the logical consequence of your comment.

 

pot kettle black JohnB...

 

John, why do you characterise people as "gay haters"? Except for the people like in the vids, most mainstream people don't "hate" gays, they really don't care one way or another. They simply think that marriage is based on procreation and should be kept between a man and a woman. For many people I've spoken to it has nothing to do with gays per se at all, it is an argument about the meaning of the word marraige. In another thread iNow and I were arguing about the meaning of the term "Climate Change". Does that make me a Texan hater? Or Anti American? Nope, it just means we were arguing about the meaning of a word.

 

So couple who are sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

This is why so many parishoners have no problem with the idea of gay civil union marriages. From their POV the gays get their right to wed and the meaning of the word marriage remains intact. As I've said before it's about the word itself and the church isn't going to give up without a big fight. So let them have the word, that is what they want and it pulld mainstream support out from under the extremists. Although America has a much higher percentage of nutters, so this answer might not work for them. But for the average Church of England or Catholic, if the word is reserved for the church they will be happy and really not care what the gay community does.

 

Even if you assume that most Christians do not have a problem with gays why do you think they right to control the word marriage? The church no more owns the word marriage than it owns the word moral. Simply stepping up and laying claim to a term doesn't make you own it...

 

So, and this may not be true for the US, but down here the "haters" are a small minority, but those who believe the word refers to a man and a woman form a large group.

 

 

They're coming, they are spreading, they intend to Evangelicalize the world, they intend to take back society and as long as so called main stream Christians don't do anything to stop them they are as bad as moderate Muslims who don't condemn the radical fringes. Economic down turns allow these fringes to make more converts, it's downward spiral that has to be stopped and what better way than not conceding them the right to take stuff away from people they don't approve of.

 

Pagans want the Christmas holidays back, they had them first, why shouldn't we take Christmas away from the Christians and give those holidays back to the pagans? Let the Christians celebrate their deities birthday some other time, it would still be the same wouldn't it?

[John Cuthber]

"John, why do you characterise people as "gay haters"? "

Because they advocate violence towards gays.

Is that a complicated issue?

 

 

Also re "They simply think that marriage is based on procreation and should be kept between a man and a woman. "

If that were true then contraception wouldn't exist.

Marriage is about sex for pleasure as well as getting kids.

However there are several major churches who believe that sex s only for procreation. You seem to have mistaken the church for the population.

Also, claiming that, because we advocate marriage for gay couples, means that we advocate under-age sex is a strawman.

(and, judging by another thread, it seems you are quite good at them)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66951-the-republican-brain/page__st__20

Edited June 19, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

There is no doubt that the same people that want to limit marriage also want to limit birth control, in fact they want to legislate morality, theirs of course, make their version of morality the only one allowed and it must be enforced by law. They are very dangerous, more so because they have so much influence over the mainstream who just can't see how good Christian people can harm anyone....

[iNow]

most mainstream people don't "hate" gays, they really don't care one way or another. They simply think that marriage is based on procreation and should be kept between a man and a woman.

I think this is a disingenuous argument, and one I already addressed earlier in the thread.

 

If they felt that marriage is based on procreation, they would equally be trying to prevent infertile couples from using the term marriage. They would equally be trying to prevent the elderly and post menopausal from using the term marriage. They would equally be trying to prevent those who have simply chosen voluntarily not to procreate from using the term marriage. They are doing none of those things.

 

They have no problem whatsoever with those other non-procreating groups from using the term marriage.

They are restricting their desire for a different term to only those who share similar genitals.

 

This isn't about procreation, and they don't seem able to offer a single relevant secular reason why the term should be restricted only to a union between a man and a woman.

 

Also, what about hermaphrodites or folks with androgen insensitivity syndrome? Or what about people with XXO syndrome, or other similar genetic issues effecting the reproductive system? Nobody is trying to prevent those people from using the term marriage. Given all of this, are you going to continue to suggest this is in any way related to procreation? If so, I have to suspect that you're not approaching the discussion in good faith, as that's a plainly disingenuous description of opponents position given the counter points I've just here offered (actually, repeated).